We have launched a new ClipperBlog.com site! You are currently on our old system & are viewing an archived page. We will continue to keep all 670 posts from our first 3 years on this archive site. Soon we will be closing the comments for each of these older posts.

Comments

Has anyone noticed how the improvement in the Clippers' play has coincided withe Shaun Livingston going down. I know there are a lot of Livingston lovers out there but I think the situation with him had turned into a soap opera. "He is improving", "he's not improving enough", "he should be better", "he isn't doing as well as other point guards who have been in the league as long or for less time". It seemed that the Clippers were going to force feed him even if it wasn't working. I'm sure some of the other players didn't take too kindly to the Clippers making him an untouchable in spite of his lack of scheduled improvement. How long do you go with a player until you say maybe we should rethink our situation. Now we have two PG's who may not be great but we know what to expect. They are not afraid to shoot even though they may not be the greatest shooters. At least they keep the opposition honest. At least we don't have we don't have Ralph and Mike saying how good Shaun is and then having him miss shots, not finish and then walk up the court looking like a deer caught in headlights. I may be wrong but just look at the results.

In the games directly before Shaun got hurt, it seemed the offense was starting to click. The game before the injury, against GS, was about as good as Shaun has ever looked. Then after the injury we went into a funk and now seem to be coming out of it again. While Hart/Ewing may be a somewhat adequate short term fix while the other wheels are all clicking, I find it hard to believe these guys could ever, in anyone's craziest dreams, lead us to the promise land. That's not to say that Shaun was ready to take it to that level either, but I think he certainly had a much greater potential than Hart/Ewing. Too bad we may never know just how good that potential is/was.

i agree to a point....he had a lot of hype but the dude did have game..BUTTT!!!! ...i think "potential" is the mos overrated word in basketball..... no one we had besides maybe EB is untouchable ....Especially considering we could have had AI ... hindsight .....

You have all missed the bigger point, when Shaun went out is also when Dunceleavy elevated MAggette to the starting lineup and relegated the deficient Q. Ross to a minimal role. For the first time all season, with CM playing real minutes, we now have two real offensive options. You cannot win in the NBA with only one guy that defenses need to worry about. So this begs the question, when is DUNCELEAVY going to apologize to Clipper fans for wasting 3/4 of our season trying to prove a point?

You have all missed the bigger point, when Shaun went out is also when Dunceleavy elevated MAggette to the starting lineup and relegated the deficient Q. Ross to a minimal role. For the first time all season, with CM playing real minutes, we now have two real offensive options. You cannot win in the NBA with only one guy that defenses need to worry about. So this begs the question, when is DUNCELEAVY going to apologize to Clipper fans for wasting 3/4 of our season trying to prove a point?

Maggette starting games and not worrying about being traded has done wonders for the team chemistry. He's been playing solid, mature ball and the selfless passes have been contagious.

It also helps that Cat and TT have remembered how to actually sink 3s.

I'm saddened by people seeing Shaun go down as positive for the team. He was finally "getting it" right before he got hurt. If he was still playing, it's almost inconceivable how good the Clippers might be right now.

I guess it depends if you want to celebrate the newfound effectiveness of the team, or find a way to lay blame for the mediocre season thus far on the shoulders of poor Shaun.

It is so much more about attitude and chemistry than personnel. I think anyone involved with pro sports knows this. If the team is mentally weak you will lose to inferior teams every time.

I think the Maggs/Dunleavy and Shaun/Sam issues were real problems. After the trade deadline and the absense of Shaun and Sam there are no more envy or fighting for positions, so the guys are coming together as a group and playing inspired ball.

Egos aside we have a decent team even without the talent of Shaun and Sam. Let's just hope we can continue to grind tighter and get some real momentum going into the playoffs.

Could be interesting if Kaman could elevate his game and pick up his beat down attitude. His free throws were rock-solid last night, hopefully he can use that to propel a late-surge in effort and offensive efficiency... would make us a real team I think???
Oh one unrelated question: Why do the Clippers keep stuffing these undesireable pre-season tickets down season ticket holders throats? Nobody wants them!!! and at full price???? insulting in my opnion!

Let the offense flow thru KAMAN. Throw the ball to our BIG MAN. He has secure hands and he can kick it out to open guys. This will keep Brand out of double team instantly. Not making Brand our focus of offensive production can yield dividends.

It's not so much getting to the promised land with Ewing and Hart, it's not having the distraction of a Shaun/Sam soap opera, creating less of a mental distraction and therefore better chemistry. Sure, having Maggette in the line up and him playing better has made a lot of difference but getting rid of these side issues has done a lot also. I am not happy to see a good guy like Shaun go down, but through no fault of his own the way management was force feeding him was a distraction, like it or not.

Guys, obviously the team is finally starting to play well, despite the lack of a viable pg, because they finally inserted Maggs into the starting lineup. The comment above is correct about the fact that teams need two scorers to compete. In reality, the great teams have three scorers, and it is a testament to the Clippers' recent play that they've been doing it with only two.

I hate to beat a dead horse here but you can lay the blame for the failures this season directly at the feet of Dunleavy. First and foremost, he relegated the team's second best player to the bench in favor of Q Ross, an offensively challenged defensive specialist. Come on. He should have known within the first couple of weeks of the season that Cuttino is getting slow and old, that Sam is not going to be playing consistently and that Livingston is simply not ready (assuming that he is ever going to be ready). At this point, it should be beyond dispute that he should have put Maggs into the starting lineup long ago.

Where are all the Maggs-haters now?

In my view we would have had at least 10 more wins if maggs had been starting from the beginning. Team chemistry would have been much better, Maggs owuld have energized the offense, etc.

Second, the five year contract they gave to Cuttino is two years too long.

Third, Sam should not have been given two more years. If he cannot play consistently, it is probably worse for the team than if he is just out for the year.

There are a number of other points to make, but I'll save them for now.

For the Maggs-lovers, why wasn't he playing like this all season then?

The only thing I can come up with is personal choice.

I mean, the Spurs often bring Ginobili off the bench and start Bowen. How is that different? Except that Maggette was complaining and not playing smart on purpose and Ginobili is a team player through and through?

There are alot of people that think they KNOW what is going on. There are at least 2 reasonable explanations for why Maggette wasn't generating assists and was giving up lots of turnovers.

I suppose thats uncomfortable to think about though. That maybe that Dunleavy wasn't wrong, that maybe Maggette was just pouting and holding back.

Amen Jax. Even if Ross was the stopper that the Dunce makes him out to be and I question that as well, he would have to be keeping his man 10 points below his average to make up for his offensive ineptitude. I said weeks ago, last year they were able to carry Ross on O with EB, Kaman and Cassell and Mobley all contributing at average or above avg. levels. But when it came clear in December that this wasn't last season, Ross should have been benched for CM.

John R - I'm not a Maggs lover, I'm just a realist who understands the makeup of this team.

This should answer your question: The clips are not the spurs, which means of course that while putting Manu on the bench leaves two legit all stars (Duncan and Parker) in the starting lineup, the clips were left with one by starting Maggs on the bench (not that he's an allstar but rather that he's a 20 ppg scorer).

In addition, the Spurs have a far deeper bench than the Clips. Maggs should have been inserted into the starting lineup regardless of his ability to provide assists. He is only doing that now because they have no one else.

I recognize that Dunleavy was trying to emulate the spurs in starting Ross but he should have realized early on that the clips are not the spurs and that his approach could not work. Instead he stuck with the bonehead lineup for most of the season, killing the team's chances.

Maggs is not a perfect player, obviously. That doesn't mean, however, that he shouldn't be starting.

Listen up - Maggs wasn't pouting, he was merely questioning why Dunleavy would decide to have the second scoring option coming off the bench on a team that has only one other legit scoring option (other than Cassell but he's been hurt all year). The move made no logical sense and Corey was just verbalizing what most of us knew all along. I would love to analyze the first quarter starting stats from this year but based on my casual reivew the Clips were invariably down, significantly, by the time Maggs came in.

Who is he to question? Its not like he has ever been an All-Star. At his worst, which for some reason he decided to show us for 60 or so games, he is a one-dimensional lumberer who is completely indifferent on defense.

A healthy Cassell, which he was to start the season, was your Parker. He has rings and has been an All-Star. And if Livingston makes it back he will be too. This team was built to emulate the Spurs. If there are chemistry problems, its because Maggette got it into his head that he is better than a Ginobili, again who has actually been an All-Star, and couldn't accept his role. I am not questioning that he played hard, but now we know he could have been taking care of the ball much better than he had been, if he wants to.

But he was too busy questioning and not using that noodle in productive ways. There's your chemistry problem. I'm sure every guy on the team wants more shots, but a coach has to make decisions. Just because a player doesn't like those decisions and decides to take negative action, consciously or not, doesn't mean the decisions were incorrect.

It just means Maggette took away the Clippers shot at being the Spurs. I'm not saying they certainly would have been, but I would have at least liked the chance to find out.

John R. is clearly delusional. It is obvious to everyone but him and The Dunce that the Clippes are vastly superior with Maggette on the floor than the inept Q. Ross. Cassell is our Tony Parker? In what universe is that? His rings are 14 years ago, one all-star appearance. I like Sam, and healthy is valuable, but never was and clearly never will be, Tony Parker. I suppose John R. thinks EB is also the equal to Duncan? Yes the coach has to make decisions and this one was clearly WRONG. Also by this logic you think Q. Ross is Bowen, again maybe in another universe, certainly not this one.John R. keep drinking at the altar of DUNCEleavy and you will happy with a boring inept team.

Actually, I think I have been clear that I am quite comfortable with having a "boring" team, in contrast with the high-flying alley-ooping losers of the past that you guys seem to be longing for.

"Sam, and healthy is valuable, but never was and clearly never will be, Tony Parker."
I disagree. For large stretches of his career, including last year, I would rather have Sam Cassell than Tony Parker. Career PER seems to back me up, even given that Sam is already experiencing the downside of his career.

"I suppose John R. thinks EB is also the equal to Duncan?"
Equal might be a little strong, but the difference is truly negligible. If EB was in the Spurs system instead of the Clippers, I believe the Spurs would have the same level of success. Career PER backs me up here as well. NBA GM's have been quoted saying they wouldn't trade EB for Kobe. This isn't only my opinion.

"There are no chemistry issues between Maggette and the team."
How do you know? Are you there in practice?

But we will never know. Corey dogged it. Not physically, that would be easy to detect, but his turnover numbers tell the story. The guy who couldn't make a post-entry pass to save his life in game 27 is now supposedly the team's main ballhandler? Sorry, I just don't believe in magic. He got what he wanted. The team lost and he was proven "right". Unfortunately the expirament was never allowed to play out in a controlled environment. One of the main variables fought tooth and nail to kill what might have been the most beautiful thing the Clippers have ever done. I can't ignore that.

I know Dunleavy isn't perfect, but he has had success with multiple team with different kinds of rosters. He coached what may have been the most uncoachable team in history in the Jailblazers. He isn't Pop. I can admit that.

Can you admit, amist your classless personal attacks, that his coaching resume is at least longer and more unimpeachable than Corey Maggette's? Because that is what you want me to believe. And I find that notion to be rediculous.

You already admitted he found it his place to question his coach. There, and only there, is the seed of chemistry issues.

John R - You ask how I might know about the chemistry issues. Good question. I'm a member of the Spectrum Club in MB, the Clips' practice facility, and I see them there all the time. You can tell that Maggs gets along well with the rest of the team.

Your point about Dunleavy's past success is ridiculously laughable. What past success has he had? How do you define success? Please elaborate. I will grant you that he did get Sterling to loosen his purse strings. Other than that I really can't think of anything.

Oh, and Maggs isn't a coach nor is he trying to be one. Thus, the Dunleavy v. Maggs re coaching skills comparo seems a bit silly.

In John R's world, a player may never question the decision of a coach. Sure, John R.

Finally, you suggest that I am personally attacking you. Let's think about that for a moment. You're posting anonymously on a blog. You are stating your opinions. I disagree. I'm also posting anonymously on the same blog. I don't think that these posts qualify as personal attacks. I hope you're not hurt.

Putting "point" in scare quotes is a personal attack. It cannot be denied. I mean, you weren't the one that called me delusional, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. You did put words in my mouth which I think most people would consider bad form. Its not really here nor there, but your words are there for all to see.

I offered one instance of success. I will gladly expand. He has had 3 50 win seasons, 3 40 win seasons including one with the Clippers building them from the ground up (which is a feat few have ever managed) and that would still be nothing without him. Sam would not be here without him, Cat would not be here without him, and it would still be 10 dudes out for themselves ballhogging and throwing alley-opps until their rookie contracts were up. They would win 20 games a year, and based on the anti-Dunleavy sentiment, there is a large community who would love that. He took one team to the Finals. He took the biggest team of misfits and malcontents ever assembled to Game 7 of the WCF. You think Maggette's ego bothers him? He dealt with the Jailblazers. If the Clippers make the playoffs for the second year in a row (again, no minor feat but I guess we feel this isn't worthy of respect itself) he will have gone to the playoffs 8 times in 14 seasons with 3 different clubs. Finally, he won Coach of the Year in 98-99. How do you define success?

I'm not saying the man is a genius. I know you guys really want to put that on me since I don't see the world from your point of view, but its just not true. But he is a competent NBA coach, and he is probably the best coach the Clippers can get, especially if they fire this one right now. Who would want to come here and deal with Sterling indicating he is back to his old ways?

So lets further address the now second post with you putting words in my mouth.

"Oh, and Maggs isn't a coach nor is he trying to be one. Thus, the Dunleavy v. Maggs re coaching skills comparo seems a bit silly."
Completely false. He was absolutely trying to usurp power from Dunleavy over his own playing time with his actions. How many minutes a player should get is a coach's decision. Maggette thinks he should be starting and getting more minutes. Ergo, Maggette is attempting to coach. This brings into the play the men's relative coaching resumes. Maggette's is of a man who doesn't even consistently demonstrate knowledge of where HE is supposed to be on the court. I have listed part of Dunleavy's above. They don't compare. To deny that deciding how many minutes a player should be playing is a coaching decision, is, well "a bit silly". Between the two men's estimates of Corey Maggette's value to the team, I tend to trust a former coach of the year over the man himself. That's just me I guess.

"In John R's world, a player may never question the decision of a coach"
Oh I'm sure most players question the decisions their coaches makes. The difference here is we have hard material evidence that it was leading Maggette to not play as well as he is able. To again clarify the false words you put in my mouth, a player should never question the decision of a coach to where it hurts the team. It would be "a bit silly" to say Corey was playing as well as he could in games 1-60 or so, and "a bit silly" to argue this wasn't a direct result of his questioning the coach. If you think this sort of behavior is positive, merely state so and we will agree to disagree.

I can assure you that you have not hurt me. I was just merely offering tips on rational and civil discussion. Its a shame that you have openly rejected them. It's funny, I address you calmly and cordially, and you wrote your post in tone addressing...some anonymous third party? Pure class all the way.

But worry not, if there is anyone around here who should be apologizing, its Maggette for holding back his full level of talent to conversely prove that he should play more.

John R - with all due respect you're the only one who is personally attacking anyone here. You spent about half of your previous post not only attacking Maggette, who's done nothing but give his all for the team, but attacking me under the guise of your ludicrous claim that I attacked you.

Once again, I never attacked you, I just attacked your silly arguments about Maggette. Because you cannot substantiate any of your arguments, you chose to attack the messenger. Nice try, but it won't work.

Let's turn to your arguments, shall we?

I see that you've now dropped your "argument" (yes I put it in quotes) that Maggette is bad for team chemistry. Smart move.

Your argument about Maggette having a big ego is similarly meritless. What is that based on? The fact that he questioned the logic behind his coming off the bench because he felt that he could contribute more while starting? Oooooooh, what a jerk Maggs must be. He never called out the coach but rather merely said that he disagreed with the decision and that they didn't see eye to eye. Apparently in John R's world one must never question authority. Perhaps he thinks the NBA is the army.

John R also claims, again without any supporting evidence whatsoever (but that's not surprising, is it) that Maggette didn't play hard when coming off the bench. According to John R, there is "hard material evidence" supporting that argument. Please, John R, enlighten us with actual facts supporting your claim.

John R waxes poetic about Dunleavy's coaching skills. (Reading that paragraph, it struck me that John R must be President of the Dunleavy fan club, but I digress). As I've stated, I do not believe, based on my review of Clipper games, the sets they run, the substitution patters and the like that he's not a good game coach. I'm not a coach and I don't claim to be, but I am entitled to my opinion.

John R points to what he perceives to be Dunleavy's success over the years. The NBA is a funny league. Talent will get you 50 win seasons, particularly talent that you inherit, but only good game coaching will get you a championship. Dunleavy doesn't have one of those, does he. I find it funny that you characterize the late 90s Blazers as a team of misfits. I would disagree with that characterization. They were an immensely talented bunch. He did lose a game he should have won against the Lakers, however (just like he lost a game he should have won against the Suns last year, but I digress).

As I've said, I give Dunleavy credit for getting Sterling to loosen his purse strings. I do not, however, believe that Dunleavy is a good judge of talent. He didn't do the Brand trade. He did, however, push for signing Cat for 5 years and for resigning Cassell for two more years, despite the fact that he's already 37 and obviosuly broken down.

He also (and this bit of attempted nepotism is unforgiveable to me) pushed hard for the team to trade for his son so he could coach him.

Finally, Dunleavy could have saved the team this year and for the future if he had pushed to trade Livingston for an established pg. I obviously don't blame him for Livingston's injury, but his myopic view that Livingston is the future of the franchise (at least at the point) is wrong in my opinion.

Sterling should never have reupped Dunleavy because he's taken the team as far as he can. They should go out and find a coach who can coach.

All of this, John R, is just my opinion. Deal with it.

Jax

Frankly, John R, in my opinion, Dunleavy is not a good game coach. I'd be happy to provide you with examples if you'd like me to. He's also never won a championship.

is simply not a good game coach. I do give him credit for helping to rebuild the Clippers, but he was not responsible for bringing over Brand. I don't think that it is too difficult to
I don't have the time to provide